The warmers need to explain the Arctic Circle's ice pattern, and how Co2 is responsible...

Lahaina at the north of Maui is on the dry side. It seems the homes he builds are on the South side and also in Lihue at Kauai. I have seen several of the large homes he built. When i was leaving his home this past August, he was in the process of buying a home. Not clear why he did that given he builds homes. Some of the homes he built he has rented out.

I'm a builder myself ... and after home-building all day long, the last thing I want to do when I get home is more home-building ... it took monumental discipline for me to set about getting just one damn door to work in this old house ...

It's a thing among tradesmen ...
 
Judith A. Curry stands among the well-known climatologists. She has worked in big institutions as a climatologist. For most of her career, she has had great research interests in hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, climate models, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. Also, she has become known as one of the most outspoken scientists in the United States arguing that there is little to be done about natural climate variance which as a result, she was academically, pretty much finished off and essentially unhirable. However, this didn’t slow her down.

John Raymond Christy works as a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) whose main interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change. He jointly with Roy Spencer developed the first successful satellite temperature record which he is widely known for.


professor, atmospheric science, MITRichard Lindzen is a professor at MIT and is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists, arguably because he has been a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on climate change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report.

Presented by Professor Jordan Peterson
 
I'm a builder myself ... and after home-building all day long, the last thing I want to do when I get home is more home-building ... it took monumental discipline for me to set about getting just one damn door to work in this old house ...

It's a thing among tradesmen ...
He still is a young man yet I am sure from his remarks recently he would love to retire and spend his money traveling the world. He does a lot of it anyway. Also so is his youngest Brother who does at times work for him and from what Brian tells me is able to to entire jobs all on his own. Brian the best of all that I speak of is about 48 years old.
 
Last edited:
Judith A. Curry stands among the well-known climatologists. She has worked in big institutions as a climatologist. For most of her career, she has had great research interests in hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, climate models, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. Also, she has become known as one of the most outspoken scientists in the United States arguing that there is little to be done about natural climate variance which as a result, she was academically, pretty much finished off and essentially unhirable. However, this didn’t slow her down.

John Raymond Christy works as a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) whose main interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change. He jointly with Roy Spencer developed the first successful satellite temperature record which he is widely known for.


professor, atmospheric science, MITRichard Lindzen is a professor at MIT and is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists, arguably because he has been a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on climate change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report.

Presented by Professor Jordan Peterson

Funny, instead of using MIT credentials to boost Lindzen why don’t you just go to the MIT website for real science.
Obviously, you’re a fraud. You can’t do it.
Neither Lindzen, not Einstein nor any individual accomplished anything without the combined consensus of their peers. The only reason Einstein is received to day is with the support of consensus institutional science dumbo. None of them agree with you bozos clown show.
No one brags as much about themselves as you deniers do....wow, you’re a pilot who never had biology.
 
professor, atmospheric science, MITRichard Lindzen is a professor at MIT and is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists,
That’s a lie. He has not been at MIT since 2013.
Like most of the very few derelicts who use their credentials from institutions that Don’t SUPPORT THEM, they are paid lackies to sew discord.....pretty much frauds like you.
NEVER HAD A BIOLOGY COURSE.

Go to the MIT website.....you’re afraid aren’t you ?
 
Go to the MIT website.....you’re afraid aren’t you ?

I did ... MIT doesn't have a separate Department of Atmospheric Science ... they lump all these subjects together and toss them to the geologists to teach ... is that the basis of your consensus? ... folks who aren't specialized in meteorology? ...

MIT has a real shitty climate ... only stupid people would go there ... UCLA and NHC are better and that's where you'll find people who truly understand climate ... ya can't beat 80ºF on Christmas Day and still have normal regular counter-clockwise spinning toilets ... does MIT say why toilets are supposed to spin down counter-clockwise? ... didn't think so, they're morons ...
 
He still is a young man yet I am sure from his remarks recently he would love to retire and spend his money traveling the world. He does a lot of it anyway. Also so is his youngest Brother who does at times work for him and from what Brian tells me is able to to entire jobs all on his own. Brian the best of all that I speak of is about 48 years old.

Does your son employ all the latest technology in passive solar designs? ... that was the big thing for us back during the OPEC oil embargoes ...

Anyway .. back to the OP ... yeah, call us when the shores of Ellsworth Island are ice-free ... right now, they're choked and packed solid, so the premise is false ... go yourself and see or watch the nature documentaries about the wolves that live there ... it's night for 7 straight months and no one knows how the wolves survive on an ice cap without any sunlight ... the climate is too hostile for human existence ...
 
Judith A. Curry
You only list people who get paid large sums of money to push bad science.

Follow the money. All of the corrupting bribe money flows to your side, so all of the fraud and garbage pseudoscience comes from your side. Nobody pushes denialism unless they've sold out their integrity and are getting paid big bucks to do so.

The ethical scientists could all instantly double their salaries if they lied for the fossil fuel companies. They won't. They refuse those bribes, effectively taking a pay cut for telling the truth. That gives them even more credibility.

If right-wing politics vanished, denialism would instanlty vanish along with it, because it's entirely politics.

If left-wing politics vanished, climate science wouldn't change a bit, because it's actual science.

By the way, we on the rational side can do more than a bad appeal-to-authority fallacy, which is all you're capable of. We understand exactly how the names you dropped fail at science.

And dear god, don't ever refer to pinhead Jordan Peterson, not if you ever want to be taken seriously on anything.
 
I should go back to something that EMH ran from long ago.

His thread topic makes zero sense.

Nobody ever claimed that CO2 is responsible for the ice patterns in the arctic. He was demanding that everyone explain his loopy fantasy.

He can't even explain his own fantasy. I asked him why all the glaciers in Alaska in the south, which contradicts his theory. He said "mountains". That's a correct answer, but it still contradicts his theory that land being near the poles is the sole factor.
 
You're trying the same fraud as EMH, pretending north and south Alaska have the same precipitation patterns.
And he can’t even tell us if his little pictures were taken in summer or wintertime …..just a minor detail.
 
I should go back to something that EMH ran from long ago.

His thread topic makes zero sense.

Nobody ever claimed that CO2 is responsible for the ice patterns in the arctic. He was demanding that everyone explain his loopy fantasy.

He can't even explain his own fantasy. I asked him why all the glaciers in Alaska in the south, which contradicts his theory. He said "mountains". That's a correct answer, but it still contradicts his theory that land being near the poles is the sole factor.
And he also doesn’t understand the difference between snow and sea ice. Increased global warming can INCREASE the snow levels in many areas like Greenland as warmer temps above extreme cold increase the snowfall rates due to higher moisture retention. He’s a fraud, just like all the deniers. He admits he never had biology….
 
And he also doesn’t understand the difference between snow and sea ice. Increased global warming can INCREASE the snow levels in many areas like Greenland as warmer temps above extreme cold increase the snowfall rates due to higher moisture retention. He’s a fraud, just like all the deniers. He admits he never had biology….

Wait ... what? ... you mean warm below and cold above right? ... we need uplift for rain ... so the warm buoyant air needs to be underneath the dense cold air for this uplift to occur ... not that there's enough moisture, these are called "polar desert climates" because of the lack of precipitation of any kind ... just what little snow does fall never melts ... my understanding is that, technically, Antarctica is covered in frost, not snow, atmospheric physics is a little different at that temperature ...

EMH tries ... but like a house cat ... he's nearly impossible to teach anything ... he doesn't accept the Greenhouse Effect for some strange reason, but when he argues that point, he exposed himself as a sockpuppet ... man, must suck to be a liar ... all that crap you have to remember ... as a troll, he fails ... kinda sad to watch but he won't quit, so pop some popcorn and enjoy the show ...
 
Well, it was reported that what now is Arctic once was subtropical.

Scientists identified the interval through specific algae, which lived only in subtropical conditions. The algae fossils reveal that the Arctic ocean once were much warmer-around 20°C (68F), similar to the waters around New York in August (NOOA) compared with today's freezing temperatures that average -1.5°C.Sep 6, 2004

Subtropical Arctic - EurekAlert!



View attachment 834468
EurekAlert!
https://www.eurekalert.org › pub_releases › sprs-sa090604








Not to side track us all, but check out this scientific report.
The gist is that CO2 does not drive warmer climate, that temperature causes climate.
That a function of temperature increasing is that Carbon Dioxide follows this and later also increases.



Co2 lags temperature, part of the British Court ruling in 2007...


Co2 does nothing.


The plates move. The Arctic Ocean area was not always in the Arctic Circle. But be careful, the Co2 FRAUD will fudge and lie.
 
he doesn't accept the Greenhouse Effect


LOL!!!

EMH exposes the lies of the Co2 FRAUD and those funded by the Co2 FRAUD don't appreciate that.

And they lie. More gas in the atmosphere traps more heat, doesn't matter which gas. Co2 is not special and increasing it did nothing to Earth atmospheric temps until the FUDGE JOB of 2005.
 
Co2 lags temperature, part of the British Court ruling in 2007...


Co2 does nothing.


The plates move. The Arctic Ocean area was not always in the Arctic Circle. But be careful, the Co2 FRAUD will fudge and lie.
No foolish . Tell that to the climate science institutes and active scientist throughout the entire world . Only you dufus would claim to know more . There is no gov or accredited school, university or related corporation or military that doesn’t think you are full of shit. Go ahead dumbo and name just one climate science related facility……
 
The map is clear. 7% of Earth ice is on Greenland.

Why is there ice on Greenland south of the Arctic Circle, and no ice north of the Arctic Circle on Alaska?


R.44e348e4009ab47f7878d0e573df3a35






Co2 and sun do not explain this.

The only explanation is the Greenland is within 600 miles of the pole at the top, and hence is in ICE AGE while all the rest of the land outside of 600 miles is not.

Ice ages are continent specific, and land moves = 99% of Earth climate change right there.



So have at it, warmers, explain how Co2 is responsible for the Arctic's pattern of ice documented above...

Start the Jeopardy! music

LMFAO!!!

Low end Mossad BUSTED LYING...


For Alaska



The average annual precipitation is 196 inches (16 ft). Average annual snowfall is 241 inches (20 ft).


For Greenland


Precipitation
in Greenland is usually scarce but quite frequent, in fact it mainly occurs in the form of light snow in the central and northern areas, while it is more abundant along the coasts located south of the Arctic Circle, but also at high altitudes on the ice sheet, where it always occurs in the form of snow. Precipitation is most abundant on the coast of the far south-east, where it even exceeds 2,000 millimeters (80 inches) per year.

Here is the breakdown by region which makes clear the SOUTHERN section are getting the most snow in fewest number of days to get it while the Far North is taking the longest to get their modest totals, but the amount of precipitation is wet snow in the south to dry snow in the north.

Average Annual Snowfall in Alaska​


LINK

But is much warmer in Alaska above 50 F in large areas in the warm part of the year which is the dominant reason WHY ice/snow fields exist only in high mountains the reason why even at Barrow the snow melts completely during the summer which is why most of Alaska is ice free at the surface in the summer time.

While Greenland is cold and below freezing year around in most places the reason why the near all of it remains covered by ice and snowfields year around.

LINK

Now here is where I have issues over what you write,

EMH writes,

Why is there ice on Greenland south of the Arctic Circle, and no ice north of the Arctic Circle on Alaska?

It is much warmer in North Alaska which allows all the modest snow and ice amounts to melt away while it is cold year around even in southern Greenland, however from the LINK I already posted made this statement:

Greenland has an Arctic climate. About 80% of the land is covered by an ice sheet that is up to 3 km thick, while the ice-free land areas are limited to a coastal strip that is 50-300 km wide. Furthest south, and closest to the edge of the ice, the climate is sub-Arctic with a mean temperature of more than 10°C in July. The climate in southwest Greenland, where most of the population of 55,000 live, is low-Arctic. This part of Greenland is characterized by relatively mild winters with a lot of snow and periods of thaw, and wet summers with average temperatures of less than 10°C in the warmest month.

bolding mine

It is the difference in TEMPRATURE is the dominant reason.
 
... Only you dufus would claim to know more ...

We only claim to know more than you ...

St Louis, Missouri had an Oceanic climate, then the Rocky Mountains were uplifted and now St Louis has a Humid climate ... climate change due to tectonic plate motion ...

[giggle] ... sea level rise is 1/8 inch per year ... continents drift couple inches per year ... for comparison ...
 
We only claim to know more than you ...

St Louis, Missouri had an Oceanic climate, then the Rocky Mountains were uplifted and now St Louis has a Humid climate ... climate change due to tectonic plate motion ...

[giggle] ... sea level rise is 1/8 inch per year ... continents drift couple inches per year ... for comparison ...
They act like, when we bring climate scientists in videos, to ensure we do not mispresent them, that we made things up. But we do in fact rely on science. And the dire damage attributed to climate change is not even in evidence at all. They made this stuff up.

Where is the damage?

Another thing, they blame man for the climate. Then they turn around and deny man controls climate.

Well that is what we keep telling them. Man does not manage climate. As you said, sea level has risen about the thickness of two dimes per year. This really is their case. Two dimes worth.
 
They act like, when we bring climate scientists in videos, to ensure we do not mispresent them, that we made things up. But we do in fact rely on science. And the dire damage attributed to climate change is not even in evidence at all. They made this stuff up.

Where is the damage?

Another thing, they blame man for the climate. Then they turn around and deny man controls climate.

Well that is what we keep telling them. Man does not manage climate. As you said, sea level has risen about the thickness of two dimes per year. This really is their case. Two dimes worth.

We've always had catastrophic weather ... that's part of climate ... no climate change required to land a Cat 5 hurricane on Miami Beach ...
 

Forum List

Back
Top